The Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman of paper’s “The Capital Weather Gang”, has written a thorough commentary on why he believes the man-made global warming movement is failing politically and scientifically to convince the public and lawmakers of the seriousness of the issue. Freedman appears to lay the fault directly at the feet of President Obama, writing that Obama’s “mistakes may cost the planet dearly.” Freedman also cites Climate Depot (and the Heartland Institute) as having made a huge impact in shaping lawmakers and the public’s skeptical view of the latest climate science.

Freedman wrote in a September 1, 2009 Washington Post essay that the “influence of groups such as CFACT’s Climate Depot is only enhanced by White House’s low profile on climate science thus far.” Freedman lamented that Climate Depot has this impact “despite a lack of evidence to back up the claims of diminishing scientific concern.”

Freedman’s essay, titled “Obama Needs to Give a Climate Speech – ASAP,” notes that President Obama “needs to do [speak out] soon, before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by.” Freedman asserts that the “increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling” and that Obama has “neglected to use his bully pulpit to hammer a climate science message.” Freedman frets that President Obama must give a big global warming speech “before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by.”

In the spirit of presenting the evidence. encouraging debate and serving as the critically needed ombudsman of the Fourth Estate, Climate Depot has reprinted almost in full Freedman’s commentary and conducted a point-by-point rebuttal. Freedman of the Washington Post is invited to respond to this Climate Depot Editorial and his comments will be published.

Climate Depot’s Point By Point Analysis

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:At this point in their presidency, which president — George W. Bush or Barack Obama — had made three climate science speeches or statements, including one lengthy speech, while the other had barely addressed it at all? If you picked former President Bush, you are correct. Are you surprised? Although Mr. Obama came into office pledging to chart a new course on climate science and policy, he has largely pitched climate change legislation on “clean energy” and “green jobs” grounds, and has not addressed the scientific reasoning behind his desire to enact new climate policies. This is a mistake that may cost the planet dearly, in addition to any political ramifications for the president.

Climate Depot Response: Freedman is correct about President Obama being similar to former President Bush. At Climate Depot, headlines frequently refer to President Obama as “George W. Obama.” Obama has taken a very similar stance as Bush when it comes to the UN by demanding China and India participate and he has acted as a “delayer” when it comes to climate policy. But President Obama has repeatedly made many silly and embarrassing climate claims: President Obama made the completely scientifically indefensible claim that the Waxman-Markey climate bill would stop global temperature increases of up to 5 degrees! Obama said on June 25, “A long-term benefit is we’re leaving a planet to our children that isn’t four or five degrees hotter.” How can the President of the U.S. can be so misinformed and full of such hubris that he somehow believes he can sign a bill that acts as a thermostat for Earth’s temperature? Is the Washington Post’s Freedman sure he really wants Obama to give a full speech on climate? At the G8 summit in Italy in July 2009, Obama and other G8 Leaders embraced “climate astrology” by pledging to control Earth’s thermostat to more than a 2 degree C rise. Obama’s Commerce Secretary Gary Locke was caught playing a climate mobster on July 17, 2009, warning Americans they needed to ‘to pay’ or face Mother Nature’s wrath — Pay up or face “floods, droughts and rising sea levels.’ In June, Obama’s Energy Sec. Chu, in true “climate astrology” fashion, claimed he knows “what the future will be 100 years from now” based on climate models. Obama seems so imbued with his ability to control climate that during the 2008 presidential campaign he prognosticated his presidency would be “the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal.” (For latest scientific data refuting sea level rise fears see here.) Once again, does the Washington Post really want to risk having Obama give a full speech on this issue?

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:A search of whitehouse.gov reveals the closest President Obama came to clearly stating his views on climate science occurred in late June, during a speech on energy policy, when he said, “There’s no longer a debate about whether carbon pollution is placing our planet in jeopardy; it’s happening.” This point is largely consistent with the consensus view expressed in the peer-reviewed climate science literature, to the extent that it communicates the causal link between carbon dioxide and climate change. However, it represents somewhat of an exaggeration since no major scientific group has outright stated climate change jeopardizes the future of the planet, but rather that it poses potentially significant risks, depending on the pace and amount of warming.

Climate Depot’s Response: At least the Washington Post is acknowledging Obama climate views “represent somewhat of an exaggeration.” Progress! But Freedman asserts Obama’s view is “consistent with the consensus view expressed in the peer-reviewed climate science literature…” What “view” is that? That would be the politically driven “consensus” view of the United Nations and the governing boards of major science groups (with no direct vote of scientific members) and the EPA which suppresses its own internal science reports that claims “do not help the legal or policy case” for regulating Co2 as a pollutant. (See: The EPA Silences a Climate Skeptic & See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin – August 25, 2009) Much of what the media considers the “consensus view” is merely the best science politics can manufacture. It is time for the media to start reading up on latest peer-reviewed studies and data which make a mockery of “consensus” claims.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:To date, Obama’s lone accomplishment on climate change science has been the release of a report on the potential impacts in June, but it essentially summarized the results of 21 studies commissioned by the Bush Administration. Furthermore, the White House has been sluggish in reorganizing the U.S. Global Change Research Program in a way that puts it on a path to producing scientific reports that policy makers can use — a major criticism of those studies completed under Bush.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:The need for leadership on climate change science further solidifies when one considers current public attitudes on the issue. Recent polling has shown public concern about climate change may be dropping, just when lawmakers are weighing new climate policies.

Climate Depot Response: Freedman is dead on accurate about the polling data. American People ‘Get it’: Americans are growing increasingly skeptical, voters are rebelling against the unfounded climate fears and the so-called “solutions” in growing numbers. Below is a small sampling of recent polling data on global warming.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:If the polls accurately reflect public opinion, which is questionable, then the increasing climate change skepticism among the public is troubling. It flies in the face of most of the scientific evidence on how climate change is already reshaping the globe, and indicates that there is a gaping disconnect between science and the public.

Climate Depot’s Response: Huh? Skepticism is “troubling?” Freedman claims skepticism “flies in the face of most of the scientific evidence” NASA’s James Hansen has tried to peddle this swill as well. See: NASA’s Hansen: Skepticism ‘can confuse the public’ Since when has questioning the “consensus” view of a political arm of the United Nations (hint: The word “Intergovernmental” is in the IPCC’s title!) become “troubling?” Why should questioning the “consensus” statements issued by the two dozen politically connected governing board members of science groups and climate model “scenarios” become “troubling?” Climate fear promoters are literally insulting the public’s intelligence when they cite a self interested UN political arm or the governing board member statements of science groups as “proof” of a scientific “consensus.” What “gaping disconnect between science and the public” is Freedman referring to? Freedman seems to believe the press releases from the UN. How sad.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:Scientists have repeatedly warned about the consequences of failing to act soon on climate change…

Climate Depot’s Response: Yes, Freedman is 100% correct when he asserts: “Scientists have repeatedly warned about the consequences of failing to act soon on climate change…” As early as 1989, the UN was already trying to sell their “tipping point” rhetoric on the public. See: U.N. Warning of 10-Year ‘Climate Tipping Point’ Began in 1989

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:The chairman of the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently endorsed a far-reaching goal of reducing the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere to 350 parts per million (ppm), down from the current level of about 389 ppm, in order to avoid dangerous climate change. Most policy makers are focused on trying to contain the increase of such gases to 450 ppm, and even this goal may be beyond reach considering the glacial pace of international negotiations.

Prominent Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer Testified to Congress: Earth in ‘CO2 Famine’ in February 2009. Excerpt: ‘The increase of CO2 is not a cause for alarm and will be good for mankind’ : Washington, DC — Award-winning Princeton University Physicist Dr. Will Happer declared man-made global warming fears “mistaken” and noted that the Earth was currently in a “CO2 famine now.” Happer, who has published over 200 peer-reviewed scientific papers, made his remarks during today’s Environment and Public Works Full Committee Hearing. “Many people don’t realize that over geological time, we’re really in a CO2 famine now. In addition, New Zealand Climate Scientist Chris de Freitas revealed on May 1, 2009 that “warming and CO2 are not well correlated.” de Freitas added, “the effect of CO2 on global temperature is already close to its maximum. Adding more has an ever decreasing effect.” Australian Geologist Dr. Ian Plimer wrote on August 8, 2009: “At present, the Earth’s atmosphere is starved of CO2…One big volcanic eruption can add as much CO2 in a day as humans do in a year.” Plimer, who authored the skeptical book Heaven and Earth, added, “On all time scales, there is no correlation between temps and CO2. If there is no correlation, then there can be no causation.” Professor Dr. Doug L. Hoffman, mathematician, computer programmer and engineer, wrote on August 24, 2009: “There have been ice ages when the levels of Co2 in Earth’s atmosphere have been many times higher than today’s.” Hoffman, who worked on environmental models and conducted research in molecular dynamics, co-authored the 2009 book, The Resilient Earth. Finally, renowned atmospheric scientist Dr. Reid Bryson said in 2007: “You can go outside and spit and have the same effect as doubling carbon dioxide.”

Scientists caution that the key to remember here is “climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables,” not just CO2. UK Professor Emeritus of Biogeography Philip Stott of the University of London decried the notion that CO2 is the main climate driver. “As I have said, over and over again, the fundamental point has always been this: climate change is governed by hundreds of factors, or variables, and the very idea that we can manage climate change predictably by understanding and manipulating at the margins one politically-selected factor is as misguided as it gets,” Stott wrote in 2008. Even the climate activists at RealClimate.org let this point slip out in a September 20, 2008 article. “The actual temperature rise is an emergent property resulting from interactions among hundreds of factors,” RealClimate.org admitted in a rare moment of candor.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:To address the public’s questions, President Obama needs to lay out the scientific case for action, including what studies show about the potential costs of inaction. Thus far, he has neglected to use his bully pulpit to hammer a climate science message home, thereby helping to fuel skepticism about climate science and lend support to the building backlash against the policies he favors.

Climate Depot Response: The answer is very simple. There is no legitimate case for “the potential costs of inaction.” The UN’s Kyoto Protocol – even if fully enacted and complied with and assuming the UN was correct on climate fears – would have virtually no detectable impact on global temperatures. More importantly, despite much ballyhooed rhetoric about how the Congressional climate bill will “save the earth”, the bill is “scientifically meaningless.” The media touted Stern Report from the UK urging action on warming has been shown to be laughable. Obama’s own EPA has admitted the Waxman-Markey bill would not even detectably reduce atmospheric CO2 levels. What case is there to be made for a bill that is purely symbolic? Freedman attempts to tout Congressional or UN carbon trading bills as an “insurance” policy against global warming. But a simple question to ask is: Would you purchase fire insurance on your home that had a huge up front premium for virtually no payout if your home burned down? If you answered YES to such an “insurance” policy, then Congress and the UN has a deal for you with their cap-and-trade legislation.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:After all, if enough lawmakers and members of the public become convinced that the science is too unsettled to act, it’s less likely that action will be taken, which would be a stunning act of defiance against the climate science community that has firmly concluded that mankind is disrupting the climate system.

Climate Depot Response: Say what?! Let’s get this straight, Freedman is asserting that failing to pass a “scientifically meaningless” climate bill amounts to “a stunning act of defiance against the climate science community?” Come on! Who speaks for the “climate science community?” The UN? The two dozen or so governing board members of science organizations? James Hansen? Al Gore? Environmental groups? What about the growing blowback against man-made climate fears occurring all over the world. Is it an act of “defiance” against science when you question computer model scares which even the UN admits are not “predictions.”

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:Like the public, some fence-sitters in the Senate are unsure what to believe about climate change as well. Senator Charles Grassley (R-Iowa), for example, was quoted by Grist Magazine as saying, in response to a question on his view of the link between human activities and climate change, “I’d be foolish if I didn’t give it some consideration because there’s a massive amount of scientists that feel that it does. But there’s also an increasing number of scientists that have doubt about it.” […] Grassley’s statement regarding the number of scientists that have doubts about manmade climate change is telling, since that is the message being disseminated via blast emails and confabs sponsored by the pro-industry Heartland Institute, as well as the Committee for a Constructive Tomorrow (CFACT), a market-oriented group that sponsors the Climate Depot Web site. That site, and others like it, consistently assert that there is a growing defection of experts from the scientific consensus view, seemingly based on the theory that if one repeats a message often enough, it will gradually become the truth.

Climate Depot Response: Climate Depot is merely factually reporting on mass defections to the so-called “consensus”, sadly, the Washington Post has mostly abandoned this type of objective reporting years ago on this issue, instead claiming the debate is over. It is very flattering that the Washington Post believes Climate Depot has virtually single handedly thwarted tens of billions of dollars of research money and carbon trading promoting man-made warming, a compliant media, a Presidential administration, the United Nations, and NASA’s James Hansen, Nobel Winner Al Gore, and many others. The fact is, Climate Depot is simply reporting on the international blowback of scientists dissenting. See: Science of man-made climate fears continues to collapse – August 26, 2009

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:Sen. Grassley’s comments demonstrate that there may be a lot of merit in that strategy, despite a lack of evidence to back up the claims of diminishing scientific concern. The influence of groups such as CFACT’s Climate Depot is only enhanced by the White House’s low profile on climate science thus far.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:The bottom line is that if President Obama wants action to be taken on climate change under his watch, he needs to speak up, and not just about green jobs and clean energy, as worthwhile as they are. He should lay out the scientific foundation underlying climate policy proposals, basing his statements on peer-reviewed scientific research, conducted free from political interference.

Climate Depot Response: Agree fully here. The public would benefit Obama “laying out the scientific foundation” for promoting a “scientifically meaningless” climate bill that according to his own EPA will not even impact global CO2 levels, let alone temperature! As for the “free from political interference” part, that would be especially welcome as well. Just ask EPA’s Dr. Alan Carlin. (See: EPA further muzzles global warming skeptic Dr. Alan Carlin – August 25, 2009)

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:Obama could do so by traveling to a laboratory of any of the dozen or more federal agencies involved with global change research, or by going to a location that is particularly vulnerable to global warming.

Washington Post’s Andrew Freedman:[Obama should] deliver a speech clearly articulating the reasons why scientists are so concerned that some have now turned to civil disobedience to get their point across, and remind people how the climate change problem is linked to energy policy. But he needs to do this soon, before the debate slips farther away from him, and more years of inaction pass by.

The sooner we can eliminate the UN from climate and energy policy, the better off energy distribution and the developing world’s poor will become. The world needs energy initiatives, not anti-energy initiatives, and as we go forward, the less the United Nations has to do with climate and energy, the better. After all, passing a “scientifically meaningless” climate bill that does not impact global temperatures or CO2 levels is hardly worth spending a moments time worrying about.

If we did actually face a man-made climate catastrophe and the “solutions” of the UN and Congress were our only hope, we would all be DOOMED!